Julian Huppert MP writes … Communications Data Bill cannot proceed

Last week the Home Secretary claimed that anyone who opposes the Draft Communications Data Bill, dubbed the Snoopers Charter, was supporting paedophiles and terrorists.

She argued, “Criminals, terrorists and paedophiles will want MPs to vote against this bill. Victims of crime, police and the public will want them to vote for it. It’s a question of whose side you’re on.”

We’ve heard that argument before. Tony Blair used similar arguments to support 90 day detention without trial, ID cards and invading Iraq.

They were misleading then, and they are misleading now. But they are the signs of someone without rational argument to make.

The Bill gives huge powers to the Home Secretary to require information to be kept about every phone call you make, text you send, facebook image you like, and anything else. Whether you communicate by Skype, Twitter, World of Warcraft in-game mail or post, she wanted to have the powers to access information about it.

We as a party said no. Nick insisted that the Bill not be pushed through Parliament, but be published and discussed, to see if it was the right thing to do – and since then, I and (Lord) Paul Strasberger have been sitting on a cross-party cross-house Committee, going through it carefully.

Today, we have published a unanimous report on the Bill.

I’ve written an article for the Independent on it – it says:

We have gone through the Home Office proposals – and the results are damning. The Bill as it is simply cannot proceed.

… the Home Office proposals go way beyond the current rules with virtually no safeguards, asking for powers for the Home Secretary to insist on any information about any communications being kept, via secret notices.

Our committee has looked into this, and concludes ‘the draft Bill pays insufficient attention to the duty to respect the right to privacy, and goes much further than it need or should’.

It was shocking to me just how little effort the Home Office made to work through their proposals with the mobile phone companies and the Facebooks and the Googles. They didn’t bother to consult properly, assuming that discussions they’d had in 2009 on similar proposals by the Labour government would suffice. And they failed to talk through the details with the Commissioners here in the UK who would have to supervise the system.

These proposals are incredibly expensive too. The Home Office estimate is that they would cost a huge £1.8 billion, and the Committee had little faith that the cost would stay there, given the experience of other IT projects. It beggars belief that this amount of money was being committed with so little evidence at a time like this.

And while the Home Office claimed there would be large financial benefits, they were entirely incapable of providing evidence that this would be the case. As the report says ‘the estimated net benefit figure is fanciful and misleading’ and ‘none of our witnesses could provide specific evidence of significant numbers of lives saved to date’.

The Committee also heard of how broadly the powers would be used. While the Home Secretary claimed in the Sun that ‘Only suspected terrorists, paedophiles or serious criminals will be investigated’, the truth is as that it could also be used for speeding offences, flytipping and things as vague as being in ‘the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom’. We are all suspects under this bill.

Towards the end of the evidence sessions, we began to get a bit more of an understanding of what the Home Office actually want. For example, proper IP address matching would allow the existing system to work better. We could look at measures such as that, but only with proper safeguards.

However what the Home Office asked for was indeed a snoopers charter, which we were asked to support with virtually no evidence.

The Bill in its current form simply cannot proceed. We must find a way forward which increases current safeguards, is narrower in scope and has a far better understanding of the technical challenges we face.

Our lives are moving online. It would be ridiculous for the Government to be given a blanket power to watch over us, just as it would be ridiculous for us to stop the Government from ever accessing any communications data. The proposals got the balance between liberty and security utterly wrong.

If the Home Office wants to fiddle with online surveillance, they have to give us evidence that it’s needed, they have to provide a costed policy, they have to improve the existing system under RIPA and they have to bring in strict and proper safeguards.

As Nick said today, “We cannot proceed with this bill and we have to go back to the drawing board.”

* Julian Huppert is Liberal Democrat MP for Cambridge.

Read more by or more about , , or .
This entry was posted in News.
Bookmark the web address for this page or use the short url http://ldv.org.uk/32103 for Twitter and emails.

8 Comments

  • Foregone Conclusion 11th Dec '12 - 2:03pm

    This is how coalition should work. Thank you Julian (and Nick… eventually…)

  • “It’s great that we’ve stopped this version of the proposals, but all the talk about ‘back to the drawing board’ and the like make me worry that it won’t be long before essentially the same proposals come back with just a few tweaks. Then we’ll be told that the Government have listened and made changes, and anyone who opposes these new proposals is a supporter of the terrorist paedophiles. Why can’t we scrap them altogether?”

    THIS!!

  • The ISP black boxes are the real ‘Rubicon’ here, as any eventual safeguards you win could be annulled at some later point in time. What assurances do you have, that they aren’t just ignoring you and the committee , and , behind the scenes, quietly pressing ahead with full implementation anyway?

  • Great work on this Julian..

  • It is incredible how stupid and ignorant the government can be. There are many ways someone can hide their traffic and IP address. Even if they pass the law it can be circumvented with the current state of technology by simply redirecting your traffic via a foreign proxy. Another issue is online banking, is the government going to keep logs of all our banking transactions? Are they going to keep records of personal records of children accessing the internet? What if the data becomes compromised and money stars disappearing, what if children’s personal details, pictures are compromised? Who will be liable? The risk and potential legal liability is formidable. This tip-toe approach is silently taking us to a totalitarian and Orwellian state of total surveillance. WAKE UP BRITAIN.

  • Andrew Suffield 11th Dec '12 - 10:43pm

    I’ve got a safeguard that we need:

    No access to surveillance data without a court-ordered warrant. None. Including all the warrantless surveillance that we currently have.

  • Really nice work rejecting this. Just keep it up!

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

If you are a member of the party, you can have the Lib Dem Logo appear next to your comments to show this. You must be registered for our forum and can then login on this public site with the same username and password.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

*
*
Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?




Recent Comments

  • User AvatarGreen Voter 17th Sep - 8:28pm
    I can see nowhere in the article where it is claimed that the Yes campaign think they can only win by certain tactics. What Caron...
  • User AvatarJulian Gibb 17th Sep - 8:04pm
    No one believes more powers will be delivered. What does that say of the Part leaders who continue to make such claims?
  • User AvatarMatthew Huntbach 17th Sep - 7:55pm
    Caracatus it is too easy to blame hostile press rather than the fact that the party was ill prepared for responding to cleggmania or to...
  • User AvatarJohnTilley 17th Sep - 7:53pm
    Matthew Hunback -- I agree with you about the truckloads of reports that councillors have to work through. 99% of ordinary people have neither the...
  • User AvatarRebecca Hanson 17th Sep - 7:53pm
    @ Eddie Sammon I wish everyone well and if there is a yes vote I will focus on trying to make it work positively. I...
  • User AvatarSteve Comer 17th Sep - 7:53pm
    The really crazy thing is that "more devolved powers" for Scotland are promised after a no vote, despite that option not being allowed on the...